Why is the public directing their anger at the individual asylum seeker that arrives at the shore…

[AnotherNC12345]

… rather than the smuggling / trafficking gangs that are responsible for the journey?

I think it’s very extreme to put all of the blame and the anger at the individual that arrives, rather than the people responsible for orchestrating the whole process. These individuals are often ‘sold the dream’ and hooked in by organised crime groups who direct them to the UK. I’ve looked at sample routes from different parts of the world (screenshots may be pending) and these are complex and would need local people, as well as law enforcement, customs officers and other government officials to turn a blind eye involved in smuggling across multiple borders.

It’s no secret that these crossings likely cost a lot of money, and I think it would be safe to assume that refugees would often be in crippling debt to the OCGs who will put pressure on them to pay it back, by threatening them and their families and I would go as far as to say they could then be coerced in to further committing crimes when granted asylum in order to pay back their debt.

These OCGs are likely involved in other trafficking / crime, not just of asylum seekers but likely drugs, weapons and sex as they have the connections across those borders.

I think it’s very unlikely that an asylum seeker is sitting there looking at all the European government websites and shopping for a country with the best benefits package and approaching a trafficker with a brochure like they’re picking a Jet2 holiday. But this is the narrative that’s often put us and fuelled in the media.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a better system and want to control our borders better on a whole, but this sheer anger and blame placed at the human in front of us seems very misplaced, when they were likely manipulated in to thinking they can have a better life in this particular country and not another, and the problem is way way bigger than an individual.

She mentioned girls being ‘excused from PE’ for religious reasons. How do we reconcile that with our commitment to equality for girls and women? How about the impact on those little girls mental and physical health, including rickets.

I self excluded from PE for basically all of my time in secondary school. I can confirm I don’t have rickets.

That’s between those parents/families and the school. I went to school with someone who didn’t attend specific RE lessons as it went against her belief system so she removed herself from those lessons, with parental and school consent.

I don’t recall that being an issue, or certainly not one discussed for very long, because it was between the school and family, and not between random uninvolved kids.

Such a strange response! If we as a society see in plain sight girls being excluded from something that is essential for their well-being (exercise) then why would we leave this for the family and school to sort out? We should be fighting for equality and women's rights, not just letting under resourced and under powered schools fight misogynistic families determined to limit the opportunities available to their daughters! The same goes for RE. Religious tolerance is a fundamental cornerstone of our society and everyone has to have some understanding of other religions to achieve this. What is the justification for missing these sessions and removing opportunities for young people to learn about important aspects of religion?

It’s not strange in the slightest.

She was a Jehovah’s Witness. For certain sessions in RE, she didn’t take part. You’ll have to forgive me for not remembering which ones, I was 14... and it wasn’t important.

It’s not up to you to decide what my children can and can’t do, frankly. If I’d had a conversation with their school that expressed I didn’t want them doing something, and they’d agreed to that, I’d have the expectation that everyone else minded their own business. I parent my kids, not you.

If you didn’t want your daughter in a sex education lesson, for example? Or a lesson about LGBT in PSHE? Can I just… put her back in there, despite not being a member of staff at the school, or you - her parent?

We’re not in charge of everything all of the time. The school have presumably agreed this child doesn’t have to do something, and that’s their decision. Everyone outside of that could exercise a bit of minding their own.

No, I fundamentally disagree with you. Just because something is currently sanctioned by a school, it doesn't mean that this is compatible with what is in the best interests of the child and that it aligns with values that are important in this country around equality and tolerance. We just stamp out extremism and child abuse that is hidden under the guise of religion.

A Jehovah Witness should be able to learn about other religions without issue. They are not being preached at or converted. A red flag around religious extremism should be raised if a family genuinely believes that their child can't be in classes that teach children about the existence of other religions.

Again, it is extremism to suggest a girl can't take part in PE for religious reasons. Physical activity is vital to a child's wellbeing. It is abusive to deny them this.

We need to empower schools to stand up to bullying extremist families that feel they can override a child's entitlement to a rounded education.

Okay.

Well as an example - I’ve personally removed our son from afternoon PE lessons. He does it earlier in the day, or not at all.

He has complex needs and the activity that late in the school day impacts his transition out of school and his wellbeing when he gets home from school, elevates his behaviour and increases his meltdowns.

I didn’t ask the other parents permission, I don’t require their permission, he’s our son and that’s our decision. It was made in conjunction with the school, who implement it, and I’d have been royally pissed off if Bob’s dad had stuck his oar in and gone against a decision we’d made as parents.

Removing a child from a lesson due to additional needs is very different to removing a child from a lesson due to religion. The former may well be justified in certain cases but I can't really think of any valid reasons for the latter. It is all about what is in the child's best interests.

Parents don't own their children. We need to be very clear about that. Children have rights as individuals that override their parents' desires. A religious parent not wanting their daughter to exercise in a PE lesson should not override her right to access a lesson that will improve her wellbeing and potentially have long lasting implications for her health.

I remember back in primary the Muslim parents wouldn't let their DC socialise with non Muslims outside of school.

The migrant accused of the sexual assault of a 14 year old girl has been convicted and jailed today. His lawyer says he hopes to be deported to his home country as soon as possible. That's your desperate person fleeing persecution.

Be careful not to say anything mean about him online. You will get 2.5 years inside.

Oh indeed
Harold Shipman - your average GP
Jimmy Savile - your average tv host
Beverley Allitt - your average nurse
Peter Sutcliffe - your average lorry driver

Is there no end to the ‘reasons’ asylum seekers shouldn’t come here - well not just asylum seekers now is it.
PE - RE - many people here for the 1000s of years that are deemed acceptable have reasons to not want their kids in classes.
Also if you’re so worried that Muslim girls are missing out on equality wouldn’t it be kinder to want them to stay to show them good ole U.K. equality 🤔
The attempts to avoid real reasons are hmm interesting though remain disappointing.

Oh, I have absolutely nothing against refugees and asylum seekers. The point is, this guy very clearly isn't either.

Do you mean Lucy Connolly?

I hope not, because she literally posted about setting human beings on fire.

Didn’t get long enough in my opinion, should have left her there.

Funny, most left-of-centre people on here seem to use UK pensioners in Spain as a gotcha when anyone suggests that migrants to the UK should learn English. Never heard anyone defend the Brits in Benidorm before! But I guess most are coming from a relatively wealthy nation and support themselves, so that's a positive.

There has, however, been a significant backlash from some Spanish citizens to British tourists and immigrants in recent years.

My personal opinion, fwiw, is that you should learn the language and integrate if you plan to live somewhere for permanently, or for a significant amount of time.

I guess fewer Brits would worry about immigrants here if they were being supported by benefits from their home country.

Retired Brits living in Spain are generally seen as contributors to that economy. You have to have worked for at least a year in Spain to be able to claim unemployment support, and must be looking for a job and not turn one down if you're offered. It's harder for immigrants to access benefits in most European countries, and France sites this as one of the pull factors of the UK for the current increasing wave of irregular migrants.

Answer - exactly the same reason some people are rude to shop staff. We can't take out the abysmal service on the CEO who earns £4m per year and wouldn't meet one of his own regional managers let alone the public, because he is in head office in London laughing his head off.

That’s fair enough, but my view is that you should learn the language of the country you live in, but don’t have to speak it in your own community or with fellow speakers of your home language.

I’d learn French if I moved there, but I’d speak to my family and other English speakers in English. Why would I speak French to my English speaking partner? 😂

. Never heard anyone defend the Brits in Benidorm before! But I guess most are coming from a relatively wealthy nation and support themselves, so that's a positive.

Also, afaik if they need interpreters for legal or medical reasons they have to pay for them and the tax payer doesn’t pick up the tab.

I would think that if people are buying a place in Spain they have money and the means to support themselves. And when they get older they have to head back to the UK for support.

If I moved to Spain every day I'd spend 1 hour learning Spanish

That’s very specific.

If I moved to any country I'd spend time learning how to speak the language there.

Migrants to the U.K. have no recourse to public funds until they are granted indefinite leave to remain. That means 5 years here on a qualifying visa at least. You also have to
meet other criteria like language tests.

Which is great and I’d always encourage people to learn the language of where they are living, but it’s also true that not everyone can do that. Learning a language requires a certain level of intellect. It also requires a chance to practise to be any good at it.

The last census showed that 90% of immigrants speak English well or very well, 52% speak it as their main language and 38% speaking it well despite it not being their main language. That’s pretty good imo.